MA Republican whining begins in earnest

Baker said he would have had to run a perfect race “in an ideal political environment” and that, by pulling 8 percent of the vote Tuesday, Cahill “made our already narrow window that much narrower.”

Ah yes, the old Howie Carr “it’s all Tim Cahill’s fault” line. No doubt, Cahill’s candidacy complicated Baker’s task to some extent. But polling suggested that the second choice of Cahill voters was Baker only somewhat more often than it was Patrick. And Baker handled the Cahill situation about as badly as humanly possible. Between the over-the-top RGA ads that set an intensely negative tone early on and the total cock-up that was Loscocco-gate, Baker did more harm to his own candidacy than Cahill could ever have dreamed of.

Furthermore, the concession that in order to win, Baker would have had to run “a perfect race” is a remarkable one. As has been amply demonstrated here and elsewhere (and elsewhere), Baker ran far from a perfect race. In fact, he ran a dreadful race. So his concession pretty much means that even if Cahill hadn’t run, Baker still would have lost.

This is perhaps the best line:

“Some swing voters seemed to sour on Republicans in the final days due to national news coverage regarding a Republican takeover of Congress,” Baker wrote.

Ah – ingenious! You see, the fact that Republicans had enormous momentum elsewhere actually worked against us here, because … um, well, the prospect of a Republican takeover of Congress made people think that maybe the Democrats should still hold the State House? Or something?

Ridiculous, of course. It had been nearly a foregone conclusion that the GOP would take over the House for months. What “some swing voters” soured on in the final days was the suicidal decision of Charlie Baker, Scott Brown, and Mitt Romney, perhaps MA’s most prominent Republicans, to campaign with Jeff “damaged goods” “strip search? what strip search?” Perry, thereby guaranteeing Baker several days of negative news coverage when he could least afford it. The explosive Big Dig Memo also hurt Baker in that final week, as it rubbed salt in the self-inflicted wound caused by refusing to talk about that issue all along.

Which brings us to Exhibit C, Scott Brown himself. As someone drolly commented (wish I could remember who it was), nude men don’t have coattails. 😀

The senator said that even though results in Massachusetts were not what he or the GOP had sought, he was impressed with both the candidates and the energy behind them.

“I’m very proud of all our candidates,” he said.

I guess he has to say that. But really, the Great MA GOP Debacle of 2010 is not going to do the Brown In 2012 cause any favors. He stuck with Jeff Perry and Bill Hudak, two of the worst candidates to run for anything in this state in years.

“Listen, I wasn’t on the ballot two days ago,” he said.

As a technical matter, no, he wasn’t. But as a practical matter, of course he was. This whole Republican surge started on January 19, 2010, and it started in Massachusetts. The fact that Brown, with all his newfound political celebrity, wasn’t able to boost a single MA candidate over the finish line is a remarkable testament to MA voters’ independence; after all, many Scott Brown voters in January (especially unenrolleds) voted for Deval Patrick and for Democratic congressional candidates on Tuesday. The fact that MA independents have turned out to be a whole lot more independent than Brown himself has the potential to devastate his next campaign.

Scott is correct to avoid any talk of the 2012 race. But there’s of course no doubt that it’s on his mind. And he likely is, and should be, nervous. The big question now is who the Democrats will run. I have my preferences, but I’m not going to say much about that now, since it’s only fair to the potential candidates to give them a little bit of time to assess the situation and decide what they want to do.

I do hope that they don’t sit on their hands for too long, since the race will not be easy. What we learned on Tuesday is that it’s possible. And that’s huge.

I love Rachel’s ability to speak truth to power, but I really don’t see her giving up the great job she has. I also think she is more effective for the reality based community in her current position. It still amazes me that she has a TV job in the corporate media. She was also one of the few commentators on MSNBC that didn’t engage in Hippie punching on election day, I see that as invaluable for a reality based view of the American political stage at this point.

<

p>I love speculation just as much as anybody else, but at this point all I want to say is [Scott] Brown to Blue in 2012 — so we don’t confuse him with the excellent Sen. Brown from OH.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

hoyapaul

that so many people cite Maddow as a potential candidate. Don’t get me wrong: she’s very intelligent, quite savvy, and solidly progressive.

<

p>But she would essentially be a celebrity candidate without the connection to Massachusetts I think people will be looking for. Yes, I know she has Massachusetts roots. But she works out of state and concentrates on national issues as her day job, not the needs of Massachusetts residents. I’d prefer a solid progressive who has worked hard and connected with Massachusetts residents on a day-to-day basis (as one could divine from my other posts, I’m partial to the Worcester boys, Tim Murray and Jim McGovern).

<

p>No knock on Maddow, even if this comment kinda sounds like it. But I think to battle a talented Scott Brown we need someone with a close connection to Massachusetts voters and who we can be sure will work for every vote (an anti-Coakley, if you will).

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

kloechner

Just spent a little time thinking about the broader ramifications of a Maddow candidacy in a regular election cycle. I’m still of the opinion that Scott Brown only won due to it being a special election, nothing else on the ballot, so all right-wing money came pouring into MA. The only real winners IMHO in that entire campaign were the media ad salespeople (well and 15 mins. of fame for a former lingerie model).

<

p>I think we have a better ground game in MA than the GOP and it wouldn’t take a ridiculous sum of money to knock off Brown, just a lot of boots on the ground. A Maddow candidacy would be a lightning rod for right wing money to pour into MA, giving our economy a nice little boost (at the expense of neglecting other closer races around the country). We could then target our small donor money into other more crucial races. All of this also neglects that “The Big One” is on the ballot in 2012 as well.

<

p>I’m also imagining the right-wing ads against Rachel now, they would be hysterical. Snarky voiced guy or scary voiced woman with ominous music “Liberal Rachel Maddow … she’s a lesbian vampire…” OK, maybe I’m extrapolating just a little too much now. I think my dog is begging for a walk anyways.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

christopher

…but she has essentially issued Shermanesque denials of any interest in running, prompted by Brown already using her as a fundraising foil.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

christy

Some of us would love to have Maddow in the final V Brown. We’ll help fund the campaign if she’s the pick. Brown by double digits.

Talk about a candidate special-ordered to lose to Brown. A woman who has no identifiable links to Massachusetts since she became well-known is the last thing we need. Brown’s elections to the US and state senate made clear that he excels at suggesting that his opponent is entitled. He pulled that “people’s seat” crap on anyone in the same party as Ted Kennedy, after getting into the state senate doing it to anyone in the same party as Cheryl Jacques. It was a steaming load, but people bought it. If you have someone who moves from a media position in New York or Washington in order to run, the argument actually gains credibility.

<

p>Add to that the challenge of getting a woman elected to anything in Massachusetts, much less somebody publicly out of the closet. What fundraising network does she have? Who in Massachusetts has worked for her? Who’s on her team?

<

p>This ain’t Idaho…we don’t need to import a qualified Democrat. It’s nice that she says liberal things on the tv, but we have plenty of choices right here.

between being sad about losing, and whining. The former is natural, and is fine, e.g. Charlie Baker’s concession speech, or the posts (to which you don’t bother to link so I can’t be sure exactly what you’re talking about) about national GOP gains. The latter has the distinctive characteristics of blaming others for your own failings, and unnecessary defensiveness, and is not fine. That’s what I’m talking about in this post.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

johnd

I was referring to the whining about how “stupid” voters elected the wrong people on Nov 2nd. I don’t think that was “sadness”.

but mostly from the right. Holly Robichaud is a particular fan of that explanation for why the MA GOP got wiped out on Tuesday. I consider that “whining.”

<

p>I would appreciate if it you’d link to the comments you’re talking about, since I don’t recall seeing them.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

conseph

I have read and participated in the threads at RMG which are more introspective. What happened, what can be learned, how to do better, etc. Those sorts of discussions have value, I also think they are the same sort of discussions had by Democrats after January with great results this November. I also think there is wide appreciation for Dem GOTV efforts which were outstanding (kudos to all here who participated).

<

p>Saying that the electorate just didn’t get it has no value and serves no value to adding to future discourse which will make the state better for competitive races.

<

p>Here is my own example, I am disappointed Mary Z did not get elected Auditor, but its not the electorates fault, it was a great GOTV effort in race that was statistically close all along.

<

p>Thanks for pointing this out, its important and you continue to do it in a polite and professional manner.

… deficits never really made it into the campaign. She sat on the board as basically a GOP operatives taking part ‘spin by selective leak’. She would have turned the office into a bully pulpit it was never meant to be.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

mark-bail

Liberals have to stop confusing what they “want” to happen in November with what is “going” to happen. You lose!

<

p>I don’t think anyone expected the Dems not to lose seats in the mid-terms. In fact, not losing seats would have been historical. For the last several weeks, polling has made it clear that we would lose the house.

<

p>On the other hand, the Tea Party really didn’t have much to do with Democrats losing (less than the Democrats did anyway). And the Tea Party certainly helped us hang on to the Senate.

<

p>

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

johnd

a few months ago many here were making light of the Tea Party and their effect on elections. If people like you and MSNBC… want to believe the Tea Party had little to no effect on the elections, then there’s nothing I can do to disprove this dilution. Many races are won by small percentages, even low single digit and to say this mass of people either directly through their votes or indirectly due tot heir energy is confusing.

<

p>You can point to Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell but I could point to Rand Paul and Marco, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson. I think they had a major impact and I for one am very glad they were there.

<

p>And they are not going away. Remember that in 2012, 23 Democratic Senators come up for reelection while only 9 Republicans, ignore the Tea Party at your own peril.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

stomv

In 2012, 21 Democratic Senators, 10 Republican Senators, and 2 independent Senators are up for re-election.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

johnd

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

mark-bail

The Tea Party certainly succeeded in getting some crazies nominated, some? many? of those crazies were elected.

<

p>Many GOP candidates would have been elected anyway. Charlie Christ would have been elected to the senate. And Pennsylvania? The same state that elected Sen. Rick Santorum twice? He’s as crazy as any tea partier and didn’t needed the Tea Party to be elected or defeated.

<

p>To give credit where it’s due, the Tea Party (whatever it is) deserves some for supporting a lot of candidates. Activism matters. Rand Paul is the clearest representation of what is a pretty incoherent movement.

<

p>Still, it seems to me that on BlueMassGroup, the “realness” of the Tea Party became an issue following the Massachusetts Miracle. (Here’s the link to the maudlin tea party video).

On January 19, 2010, America experienced the ‘Massachusetts Miracle’. A US Senate seat that had been held by Democrats for over half a century was won by a little-known Republican by the name of Scott Brown. This was a historic election and a referendum against the tyrannical agenda being pursued by Congress and the Obama administration. Brown’s victory gave Republicans the critical 41st vote necessary to break the Democrat’s filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate.

<

p>The Tea Party had absolutely no effect in Massachusetts in 2010 or, it turns out, with Scott Brown.

<

p>Now that some Tea Partiers have been elected, the hard part starts… for them. It’s always easy to criticize government, even easier when the country faces intractable problems. Once you own those problems, and create a few of your own, you realize, as the President is finding out, that there’s more to politics than getting elected.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

tom-m

The Cahill spoiler argument is just absurd. Baker would have to have picked up roughly 90% of the Cahill votes in order to win. Does anyone honestly believe that was possible?

<

p>Then again, these are the same people who were going to close a $2.5B budget gap with $500M in cuts.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

roarkarchitect

Patrick transformed himself in this election and Baker was wrong to go after Cahill first. Baker is much more upbeat than his staff presented.

<

p>Both Patrick and Baker got burnished by this election. It was healthy for both parties.

<

p>During the debates Cahill wasn’t even on the same plane as Patrick and Baker.

There you go: incompetent campaign management. The team that brought you Kerry Healey in a dark parking lot have now followed up with Charlie Baker’s one-minute stump speech for Jeff “He must have heard me screaming and crying” Perry just a few days before the election. That put the knife in whatever possible hopes Baker might have had for the election. 2/2!

The Cahill spoiler argument is just absurd. Baker would have to have picked up roughly 90% of the Cahill votes in order to win. Does anyone honestly believe that was possible?

<

p>That’s exactly right. As David noted, the polling showed only a few more Cahill voters had Baker rather than Patrick as their second choice. And, frankly, I’d bet that if Cahill wasn’t in the race most of those voters (or at least half) wouldn’t have bothered to vote at all.

<

p>

Then again, these are the same people who were going to close a $2.5B budget gap with $500M in cuts.

<

p>Right, and then wanted to throw another $2.5B in debt (via Question 3) onto the pile as well.

<

p>Perhaps we can have a contest at BMG: a snazzy prize to the first Republican anywhere who backs up their claims that they’ll balance the state budget — with actual numbers, please. BONUS: Be willing to back up the Republican rhetoric as to the federal deficit as well.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

kloechner

You forgot the Magic Libertarian Dust!

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

johnk

that struck me was that Patrick was a great campaigner, I took it as a back handed complement. Similar postings by Republicans that Baker is a better leader than campaigner. I reject that argument outright. People don’t knock on doors because someone says nice things, they are energized or motivated to do more because they believe in the candidate as a leader. To a lot of people Patrick’s record as a leader and trust was much more appealing when they compared him to Baker and his lack of details and leadership.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

fdr08

Had a local elected official friend of mine who is a Republican tell me that he did vote for Patrick. Said overall from a local gov’t viewpoint Patrick had done well with minimizing cuts to local aid and supporting Chapter 70 money. Patrick had tackled issues Republican Govs’ only dreamed about; police details, Quinn bill, transportation consolidation. Was afraid if Baker got elected the 2 billion shortfall would be taken out on local aid. Had more faith in Patrick.

You Must Be Logged In To Vote00You Must Be Logged In To Vote

2019 years ago

Guest

roarkarchitect

Including some holding signs for local democratic officals. There was some cross over, not enough for me 🙁

<

p>”Patrick was a great campaigner” is not a back handed complement he did a good job campaigning. His polls numbers last year were very low, he realized he was in trouble and worked hard to bring them up. I know Baker would have won against a lesser candidate.

<

p>We all had to admit his administration has had problems – I’m hopefully for term two.